Yet as legal gun ownership has increased nation-wide, the rate of gun violence actually decreased (Center for Disease Control statistics between 1993-2013).

Nice cherry pick given all violent crime involving any sort of weapon dropped during the same period.

Its intellectually lazy to just cry "cherry pick" instead of attempting to figure out the relationship between crime and legal gun ownership. The fact that all violent crime decreased does absolutely nothing to invalidate the statistics.

Since you are not disputing the figures, then what exactly are you arguing against?

Chicago has just had its 500th person killed with a gun this year alone.

Chicago also has some of the stricter gun laws in the USA.

Two things to take from this:

1. The same people calling for gun control in the wake of mass shootings never say a word about handguns, which are a far worse problem than rifles. You won't see Jimmy Kimmel crying on TV or Chuck Schumer demanding handguns be taken from African Americans.

2. Generic gun control does nothing to reduce gun crime. Criminals don't care about laws... that's why they are criminals. They will still access their illegal guns and they will still commit their crimes. If you cannot restrict the flow of illegal weapons into a geographical area, which is almost impossible even for a country as isolated as Australia (let alone the USA), then "Gun Control" is just a buzz word which means nothing where it counts.

1. Plenty of gun control advocates have spoken about hand guns.

2. That's your opinion. Criminals may not care about laws but when gun ownership is so prevalent and easy they don't need to anyway. Stricter enforcement and controls over the amount of guns reduces accessibility for one. I'm all for stricter penalties for illegal gun possession.

Gun control isn't buzz words. It's a legitimate state aim to reduce gun ownership to as small a group as practical. We can't stop every drug inportation either but not enforcing importation laws would be stupid.

Can we stop every criminal from getting a gun? Of course not but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to limit that number to as few as possible.

1. The emotional reaction from the Amercian Left always peaks after a mass shooting. But when literally dozens of people are killed every day by handguns, no one outside of dedicated gun control activists raises a peep. Not the democrats, not the mainstream media, and not the political pundits.

2. I too am for stricter penalties for illegal gun possession or use. Even in Australia, i think if you committ a crime with a gun you should automatically have another 10 years added to your sentence. But this doesn't stop massacres from happening, which is what i am talking about.

Ban gun ownership except where a person can justify a need for one.
Make gun owners meet strict requirements for the storage and use of such guns.

You have to be realistic in your proposals.

You cannot 'ban' gun ownership in America. This is not what any of the discussions in the USA have been about. Not even the democrats have openly suggested this, because they know it will never happen. Its an embedded part of Amercian culture, so any proposals must bear this in mind, which is what makes it so hard to come up with anything meaningful.

Their proposals have all centered on background checks (which the vegas shooter passed), limiting magazine sizes (there are already about 60 million high capacity magazines in circulation according to Tucker Carlson the other night, so good luck in finding 60 million magazines held privately), 'Silencers' according to Hillary Clinton (not even worth discussing, due to the absurdity of the suggestion), Gun-Show 'loopholes' (the Vegas shooter didnt buy any weapons from a gunshow). None of these do a single thing to stop a determined madman from embarking on a mass shooting.

Storage proposals are a step forward, and i agree with that. But that doesn't stop massacres happening, it just stops children getting their hands on their parents guns and killing their siblings.

You are using one "madman" to disagree with those arguments, the discussion is about gun control, not one isolated incident.

You are using one "madman" to disagree with those arguments, the discussion is about gun control, not one isolated incident.

So if the proposals don't stop this madman, then what is the point? Passing gun laws so people feel good about themselves, or passing gun laws that actually reduce numbers of people dying?

Bearing in mind we are dealing with the USA, where it is a legal right for a person to own a weapon. So saying 'lets ban guns' is not a realistic proposal.

And also bearing in mind the statistics show that there is no strict correlation between tougher gun control and gun/violent crime, then what specific proposals would work?

I am not some gun nut who thinks people should walk down the streets with bazookas strapped to their shoulders, i am genuinely interested in what people think would work, because i haven't heard what the so-called magic bullet is to solve this issue.

If you have more guns, then there's a bigger pool for criminals to steal weapons from and making them readily available and cheap to other criminals on the black market, that should reduce the overall number of fatal... Oh hang on a minute.

I've seen diamonds cut through harder men than you yourself but if you must pretend you may meet your end.

2. Generic gun control does nothing to reduce gun crime. Criminals don't care about laws... that's why they are criminals. They will still access their illegal guns and they will still commit their crimes. If you cannot restrict the flow of illegal weapons into a geographical area, which is almost impossible even for a country as isolated as Australia (let alone the USA), then "Gun Control" is just a buzz word which means nothing where it counts.

Which sounds wonderful until we notice that 60% of guns used in crimes in Chicago in 2013 were purchased legally outside Cook county. Criminals dont have to get illegal weapons. They can buy them legally because the NRA makes sure any attempt at increased background checks gets stopped dead.

Washington DC banned guns outright in the mid-70's, literally only the police had legal access to guns. However the murder rate doubled every few years while this total gun ban was in place (overturned in Heller case).

Yet as legal gun ownership has increased nation-wide, the rate of gun violence actually decreased (Center for Disease Control statistics between 1993-2013).

Stats can tell you a million things or nothing at all, but it is worth taking these sorts of findings into consideration before declaring that Gun Control will somehow be the magic pill that everybody is seeking.

All that tells you is action needs to be national. DC is sandwiched between 3 states and an easy drive to several more. Gun reform is meaningless in isolation like that.

Its intellectually lazy to just cry "cherry pick" instead of attempting to figure out the relationship between crime and legal gun ownership. The fact that all violent crime decreased does absolutely nothing to invalidate the statistics.

Since you are not disputing the figures, then what exactly are you arguing against?

I am arguing it is wrong to take a fact in isolation and then use that fact to prove a wider point. For example arguing gun control does not work by point out how people suffer from gun attacks in a given time period.

You have to look at the wider picture. Did any contributing factors change during the period in question.

Yes - resolution of gun related homicides have crashed from nearly 70 percent to under 20 percent during the same period.

Yes - Access to firearms outside the control area remain unchanged.

See what I did there - I used facts to understand why gun control in an area are failing, rather than just deciding the law is flawed.

Its intellectually lazy to just cry "cherry pick" instead of attempting to figure out the relationship between crime and legal gun ownership. The fact that all violent crime decreased does absolutely nothing to invalidate the statistics.

Since you are not disputing the figures, then what exactly are you arguing against?

I am arguing it is wrong to take a fact in isolation and then use that fact to prove a wider point. For example arguing gun control does not work by point out how people suffer from gun attacks in a given time period.

You have to look at the wider picture. Did any contributing factors change during the period in question.

Yes - resolution of gun related homicides have crashed from nearly 70 percent to under 20 percent during the same period.

Yes - Access to firearms outside the control area remain unchanged.

See what I did there - I used facts to understand why gun control in an area are failing, rather than just deciding the law is flawed.

So even though you admit the facts indicate a drop in gun related homicide since gun ownership has increased, you still claim the law is flawed? If there were other contributing factors as you have posed, then surely these areas should be concentrated upon as they are working?

So even though you admit the facts indicate a drop in gun related homicide since gun ownership has increased, you still claim the law is flawed? If there were other contributing factors as you have posed, then surely these areas should be concentrated upon as they are working?